Geothermal Energy

[Freegrass]

while there may well be some damage from earthquakes after fracking forGeothermal wells , that damage would barely register compared to the global damage , death and destruction due the burning of fossil fuels .....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/19/fossil-fuel-firms-owe-climate-reparations-of-209bn-a-year-says-study

I couldn't agree more Kiwi. In Holland, they lived with earthquakes for real, for a very long time, before they stopped taking out all that gas. They loved the wealth of all that gas beneath their feet more than they hated the tremors. And these little tremors from EGS will be not be that bad. You're not deflating an entire gas field. You're just pumping up a little of that hot rock a few kilometers beneath our feet. I'm sure the tremors will hardly have an impact.

And if they do have a big impact — I guess with one or two wells for every 100 maybe? Pure guess. But it is possible.  So let's not deny that. Then perhaps we should create a fund that can compensate these people?

The benefits of EGS outweigh the negatives by a lot. So let's get real about it.
Do you want a power line above your head that transports clean energy from the sea? Or do you want a massage chair?

Things are shaking up in my home pretty good these days, because they're hammering in pylons for the new highway in Antwerp. I feel the tremors every day right now. And I just have to live with it, don't I? In the name of progress...

[John_the_Younger]

Fair enough, Kiwi.  But if "someone" causes damaging earthquakes, that "someone" is going to get sued; individuals will go bankrupt and governments will be stopped by the courts.  The frequent goal of "short term pain for long-term gain" is fraught with stories of "short term pain and bankruptcy" - in the US, some 90% of first-time business ventures fail.

On the bright side, maybe large earthquakes won't be triggered by this type of geothermal energy exploration/development.

[interstitial]

I read/heard somewhere that the geology in areas ideal for EGS are more stable than areas with oil. I do not recall the reasoning though.

[John_the_Younger]

Eastern Colorado was considered seismicly very stable before they tried injecting wastewater.  Just saying.

[kiwichick16]

@ jty  ..... so if a companies activities are causing damage i'm glad i don't own any shares in ff companies

we can earthquake proof buildings ....

https://www.preventionweb.net/news/how-we-can-make-buildings-earthquake-proof

[Sigmetnow]

Below:  Earthquakes, 7 days, all magnitudes, US.

The earthquake-rich states in the middle of the country are the oil and gas industry capitals of Texas and Oklahoma.  And they do not have active plate borders the way California does.

Just saying, we have already experimented with injecting water deep below ground, and the results can be surprising.  So this experience should be reviewed carefully when considering geothermal projects.

 
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=27.74188,-110.91797&extent=40.04444,-84.68262&range=week&magnitude=all&list=false

[kiwichick16]

in the NZ case , we are looking at drilling 4 - 10 kilometers  deep .......2.4 - 6 miles

https://www.gns.cri.nz/research-projects/geothermal-the-next-generation/

shale oil wells 5000 -10000 feet  ........1.5 - 3  kilometers

https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/ohiodnr.gov/documents/oil-gas/factsheet/hydraulic-fracturing_0815.pdf

[johnm33]

For those susceptible to the 'conspiracy theory' taboo this site will be hard to swallow but he does make amongst the best earthquake predictions out there. Jump in at around 15min to get some insight into the scale of fracking.

[Freegrass]

We are mixing up things here. The risk of earthquakes from enhanced geothermal is much less than for oil fracking.

Most induced earthquakes are not directly caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The recent increase in earthquakes in the central United States is primarily caused by disposal of waste fluids that are a byproduct of oil production.

The largest earthquake known to be induced by hydraulic fracturing in the United States was a magnitude 4.0 earthquake that occurred in 2018 in Texas.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/does-fracking-cause-earthquakes

So let's not exaggerate things here to scare people. Oil and geothermal fracking are 2 completely different things. Geothermal goes much deeper, and doesn't inject wastewater, which is the main reason for earthquakes.
Here's what copilot had to say.

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and oil fracking both involve injecting fluids into the ground, but they differ significantly in their processes and impacts, particularly regarding the risk of inducing earthquakes.

### Key Differences:

1. **Injection Pressure and Volume**:
   - **EGS**: Typically uses lower injection pressures and volumes compared to oil fracking. The goal is to enhance the permeability of existing fractures in hot rock formations to allow water to circulate and extract heat.
   - **Oil Fracking**: Involves high-pressure injection of large volumes of water, sand, and chemicals to create new fractures in the rock to release oil and gas.

2. **Depth of Operations**:
   - **EGS**: Usually targets deeper rock formations, often several kilometers below the surface, where natural seismic activity is less likely to be triggered.
   - **Oil Fracking**: Often occurs at shallower depths, closer to fault lines that can be more susceptible to induced seismicity.

3. **Fluid Management**:
   - **EGS**: The fluid used is typically water, which is circulated through the system and reused, minimizing the need for disposal.
   - **Oil Fracking**: Generates significant amounts of wastewater that often need to be disposed of in deep injection wells, which can increase the risk of inducing earthquakes.

4. **Geological Considerations**:
   - **EGS**: Focuses on areas with naturally high temperatures and existing fractures, reducing the need to create new pathways.
   - **Oil Fracking**: Often targets dense rock formations like shale, requiring the creation of extensive new fractures.

### Summary:
The combination of lower injection pressures, deeper target formations, and more controlled fluid management in EGS reduces the likelihood of inducing significant seismic events compared to the higher pressures, shallower depths, and extensive wastewater disposal associated with oil fracking.

[Ranman99]

If I am not mistaken, the strongest earthquake ever proven to be related to fracking was around a 4.0. Given the pickle we are in, I would take a lot of Geothermal with a few quivers without too much concern. 

[Freegrass]

If I am not mistaken, the strongest earthquake ever proven to be related to fracking was around a 4.0. Given the pickle we are in, I would take a lot of Geothermal with a few quivers without too much concern. 

Exactly Ranman. The risk of harmful earthquakes is negligible. And if they do happen, and cause damage, there's always insurance. Some fund or insurance to compensate for damages will have to be created. Just in case. But the risks are very minimal compared to oil fracking, air pollution, and climate change.

I was looking for energy prices. Can someone help me with this? I know these numbers are posted here sometimes, but I can't find them. Is there a recent list with energy price in MWh? I don't believe what copilot is saying here for EGS. If that were true, that would be tremendous.

But I do see that battery, nuclear, and offshore wind are all above $100/MWh. So, to be commercially successful, EGS needs to be below $100 to be successful. Fervo is below $200 right now. They said they've already made huge improvements since then, so they're on their way to $100 by next year. So where does copilot get a price of $36.40/MWh for EGS? Can someone help me out with these prices? Are batteries and offshore doomed to fail if they can't drop below $100/MWh?

Here are the current average costs of electricity production per megawatt-hour (MWh) for various energy sources from Copilot:

### Renewable Energy Sources
1. **Solar (Standalone)**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $32.78 per MWh⁵.
   - **Notes**: Solar energy costs have decreased significantly over the years, making it one of the most affordable renewable energy sources.

2. **Wind (Onshore)**
   - **Cost**: Around $36.93 per MWh⁵.
   - **Notes**: Wind energy is one of the cheapest renewable sources, especially onshore.

3. **Wind (Offshore)**
   - **Cost**: Generally higher, around $120 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Offshore wind is more expensive due to higher installation and maintenance costs.

4. **Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)**
   - **Cost**: Around $36.40 per MWh⁵.
   - **Notes**: EGS is a promising technology that can provide a stable and continuous power supply, but it is still in the early stages of widespread commercial deployment.

### Conventional Energy Sources
1. **Nuclear**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $92 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Nuclear power is reliable and provides a steady baseload of electricity, but it has high initial capital costs and long construction times.

2. **Natural Gas**
   - **Cost**: Around $59 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Natural gas is a flexible and relatively low-cost source of electricity, but it is subject to price volatility and emits greenhouse gases.

3. **Coal**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $109 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Coal is a traditional energy source with high emissions and environmental impacts, and its use is declining in many regions due to environmental regulations.

### Emerging and Other Energy Sources
1. **Biomass**
   - **Cost**: Around $95 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Biomass can be a sustainable energy source if managed properly, but it can also have significant environmental impacts if not sourced responsibly.

2. **Hydropower**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $50 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Hydropower is a reliable and low-cost source of renewable energy, but it is limited by geographical and environmental constraints.

These costs can vary based on location, technology advancements, and market conditions. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 10/27/2024
(1) Types of Energy Ranked by Cost Per Megawatt Hour. https://solarpower.guide/solar-energy-insights/energy-ranked-by-cost.
(2) Today in Energy Daily Prices - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/prices.php.
(3) Exploring Wholesale Energy Price Trends - Lawrence Berkeley National .... https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/rewep-2024update_tech-brief_20240429.pdf.
(4) Real-Time Electricity Tracker – Data Tools - IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/real-time-electricity-tracker.
(5) Energy Prices - Data product - IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/energy-prices.

[oren]

Copilot provides source 3 for EGS prices, while source 3 has no mention of geothermal or EGS that I could find, and the number 36.40 does not appear in the cited source.
I would strongly recommend to do the googling and find actual sources that you can verify.

Edit: I misread the sourcing, it's source 5, indeed contains $36.40 for geothermal, but not ESG.
But in addition, source 5 is not a primary source but cites EIA, and it's unclear at what date the data was taken from EIA - it may have been 2022, which would make it outdated.

In any case, I think EGS needs to drop to $50 rather than to <$100 per MWh in order to be competitive. You want to it to take off tremendously, not just have pilot projects, so it needs to be a no-brainer that any sane financial manager would sign on.

[Richard Rathbone]

If I am not mistaken, the strongest earthquake ever proven to be related to fracking was around a 4.0. Given the pickle we are in, I would take a lot of Geothermal with a few quivers without too much concern. 

4 doesn't demolish your house, but it does make you think your neighbour's house has blown up. Its the limit of whats tolerated from fracking in the Canadian wilderness, but its not tolerable near an urban area. The UK limit was set at 2, and the experience of quakes wrecked any local support the frackers had. Warnings happen at lower levels. Normal operation is supposed to be below 2 in Canada and was supposed to be below 0.5 in the UK.  If they had kept below 0.5, they'd probably still be fracking, but they went over 2, promised it wouldn't happen again, were given a final warning and allowed to restart, went over 2 again, and got permanently shut down.

[El Cid]

Here are the current average costs of electricity production per megawatt-hour (MWh) for various energy sources from Copilot:

### Renewable Energy Sources
1. **Solar (Standalone)**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $32.78 per MWh⁵.
   - **Notes**: Solar energy costs have decreased significantly over the years, making it one of the most affordable renewable energy sources.

2. **Wind (Onshore)**
   - **Cost**: Around $36.93 per MWh⁵.
   - **Notes**: Wind energy is one of the cheapest renewable sources, especially onshore.

3. **Wind (Offshore)**
   - **Cost**: Generally higher, around $120 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Offshore wind is more expensive due to higher installation and maintenance costs.

4. **Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)**
   - **Cost**: Around $36.40 per MWh⁵.
   - **Notes**: EGS is a promising technology that can provide a stable and continuous power supply, but it is still in the early stages of widespread commercial deployment.

### Conventional Energy Sources
1. **Nuclear**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $92 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Nuclear power is reliable and provides a steady baseload of electricity, but it has high initial capital costs and long construction times.

2. **Natural Gas**
   - **Cost**: Around $59 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Natural gas is a flexible and relatively low-cost source of electricity, but it is subject to price volatility and emits greenhouse gases.

3. **Coal**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $109 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Coal is a traditional energy source with high emissions and environmental impacts, and its use is declining in many regions due to environmental regulations.

### Emerging and Other Energy Sources
1. **Biomass**
   - **Cost**: Around $95 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Biomass can be a sustainable energy source if managed properly, but it can also have significant environmental impacts if not sourced responsibly.

2. **Hydropower**
   - **Cost**: Approximately $50 per MWh¹.
   - **Notes**: Hydropower is a reliable and low-cost source of renewable energy, but it is limited by geographical and environmental constraints.

Don't use copilot, its more often wrong than right.

The best source for levelized cost of energy is the annual Lazard publication:

https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf


- utilty scale solar is 29-92 USD/MWh
- rooftop is 122-284
- utility scale solar + storage is 60-210 USD
- onshore wind : 27-73, with storage 45-133
- gas: 45-108 USD
- nuclear : 142-222 USD

If  EGS can go below 100 USD it will be a nobrainer. For 24/7 Co2 free baseload energy that would be unbeatable. Wind and solar are erratic, need lots of storage and grid-developement, so their real cost is probably way above 100. Also, geothermal needs less space.

[John_the_Younger]

Wastewater injection wells:

Class I wells allow injection far below the lowermost USDW. Injection zones typically range from 1,700 to more than 10,000 feet in depth

10,000' = 3 km.

I expect wastewater injection wells use higher water pressures than would EGS, but maybe not....

From a US Dept. of Energy factsheet (2016):

Induced Seismicity
During EGS reservoir creation and stimulation, rocks may slip along pre-existing fractures and produce microseismic events. Researchers have found these microseismic events, also known as induced seismicity, to be a very useful diagnostic tool for accurately pinpointing where fractures are re-opened or created, and characterizing the extent of a reservoir. In almost all cases, these events occur in deep reservoirs and are of such low magnitude that they are not felt at the surface.
Although induced seismicity data allows better subsurface characterization, GTO also understands public concern. With this in mind, DOE led an effort to create a protocol for addressing induced seismicity associated with geothermal development, which all DOE-funded EGS projects are required to follow. This work was informed by panels of international experts and culminated in an International Energy Agency- accepted protocol in 2008. The protocol was updated in early 2011 to reflect the latest research and lessons learned from the geothermal community.
In addition, in June 2012, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued Induced Seismicity Protocol in Energy Technologies. The report found that geothermal development, in general, has a low potential for hazard from induced seismicity. The NAS report cited the DOE Induced Seismicity Protocol as a best practice model for other subsurface energy technologies.
Visit geothermal.energy.gov or email geothermal@ee.doe.gov.
DOE/EE-0785 • May 2016

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system

In many rock formations natural cracks and pores do not allow water to flow at economic rates. Permeability can be enhanced by hydro-shearing, pumping high-pressure water down an injection well into naturally-fractured rock. The injection increases the fluid pressure in the rock, triggering shear events that expand pre-existing cracks and enhance the site's permeability. As long as the injection pressure is maintained, high permeability is not required, nor are hydraulic fracturing proppants required to maintain the fractures in an open state.

... Unlike hydrothermal, EGS is apparently feasible anywhere in the world, depending on the resource depth. Good locations are typically over deep granite covered by a 3–5 kilometres (1.9–3.1 mi) layer of insulating sediments that slow heat loss.

Advanced drilling techniques penetrate hard crystalline rock at depths of up to or exceeding 15 km, which give access to higher-temperature rock (400 °C and above), as temperature increases with depth.

EGS plants are expected to have an economic lifetime of 20–30 years.

<Emphasis added>

[kiwichick16]

Jesus H Christ  .......NZ , on average , gets 50   magnitude 5 earthquakes every year

and 2 magnitude 6 earthquakes ......every year

Any thing less than a 3 hardly gets a mention

https://www.learnz.org.nz/shakeout154/bg-standard-f/earthquakes-in-new-zealand#:~:text=Based%20on%20its%20seismic%20history,they%20often%20occur%20in%20clusters.

[Freegrass]

The best source for levelized cost of energy is the annual Lazard publication:

https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf


- utilty scale solar is 29-92 USD/MWh
- rooftop is 122-284
- utility scale solar + storage is 60-210 USD
- onshore wind : 27-73, with storage 45-133
- gas: 45-108 USD
- nuclear : 142-222 USD

If EGS can go below 100 USD it will be a nobrainer. For 24/7 Co2 free baseload energy that would be unbeatable. Wind and solar are erratic, need lots of storage and grid-developement, so their real cost is probably way above 100. Also, geothermal needs less space.

Thank you so much El Sid. Those are the words that I wanted to read. I think Fervo is around $150 now. That should really fire up a lot of people in the drilling world, dying to copy what Fervo is doing.

The list of benefits for EGS is long. I mentioned them before. But I forgot an important one; Heat.

Now we can create steam with heat pumps and EGS.

This is Almería in Spain. I can see greenhouses popping up everywhere around EGS. They'll have 24/7 electricity, and heat.

[Sigmetnow]

Jesus H Christ  .......NZ , on average , gets 50   magnitude 5 earthquakes every year

and 2 magnitude 6 earthquakes ......every year

Any thing less than a 3 hardly gets a mention

https://www.learnz.org.nz/shakeout154/bg-standard-f/earthquakes-in-new-zealand#:~:text=Based%20on%20its%20seismic%20history,they%20often%20occur%20in%20clusters.

So no doubt all the infrastructure there was built with that in mind.  As Freegrass noted, old European buildings, as just one example, were not.  Buildings in Oklahoma and Texas certainly weren’t built expecting regular earthquakes.

[Freegrass]

Jesus H Christ  .......NZ , on average , gets 50   magnitude 5 earthquakes every year

and 2 magnitude 6 earthquakes ......every year

Any thing less than a 3 hardly gets a mention

https://www.learnz.org.nz/shakeout154/bg-standard-f/earthquakes-in-new-zealand#:~:text=Based%20on%20its%20seismic%20history,they%20often%20occur%20in%20clusters.

So no doubt all the infrastructure there was built with that in mind.  As Freegrass noted, old European buildings, as just one example, were not.  Buildings in Oklahoma and Texas certainly weren’t built expecting regular earthquakes.

I found this website for earthquakes in Belgium, and saw that we already have a cluster of tremors in Dessel that are registered as “induced events” going up to 2.1.

https://seismologie.be/en

So yes, these tremors will have to be debated in Europe. Are we willing to accept them? What we get in return is enormous. Industry is sick and tired of having to deal with a grid that is causing them so many problems. The fluctuation in energy prices is driving them insane. Volkswagen is closing production in Germany because energy costs are way too high.

It's the biggest argument against solar and wind; intermittence, unstable grids, and high energy costs. So if we now have a solution, are we willing to let it pass because of a few tremors we will hardly feel? It's not as if the earth will suddenly drop away from beneath our feet. It's the same as hitting pylons in the ground. Houses don't fall apart from construction, do they?

Edit:
Just don't frack underneath historical cities with ancient houses. There's more than enough room for that in the rural areas and on industrial sites.

[Freegrass]

Have you planted your seed already with your favorite governmental representative? I called upon my hero just now, who has helped me to turn Buddhism into an official religion in Belgium. I asked him to plant an EGS seed into the possible new Belgian coalition agreement. We just had an election here, and the new government isn't formed yet. So this is the best time to do this. I still have other options if those coalition talks fail.

This was my seed;
Investigate the possibilities of EGS in Belgium.

If he can enter that tiny little sentence into our coalition agreement, we're off to the races in Belgium, and the debate in Europe can begin.

I love planting seeds so much. 

Here's my Netherlandic email to him, in my own style.

Dag Bert,

Dat heb je zeker gedaan, en daar ben ik je eeuwig dankbaar voor. ☺️ Boeddhisme is het beste zaadje dat ooit geplant is België. Laat het nu maar groeien.☺️

En nu moet ik je vragen om een nieuw belangrijk zaadje te planten. Als er ooit een akkoord komt voor een federale regering met Vooruit, dan moet je in die regeringsverklaring een klein zinnetje zien in te krijgen. Het zinnetje luid: "Er wordt onderzoek gedaan naar verbeterde geothermische energie in België".

Enhanced geothermal energy, zoals het in Amerika genoemd wordt, bereikt mijlpalen met Fervo Energy. Als je wil, dan kan ik je alles in detail uitleggen.

In kort is het de redding voor het klimaat en onze industrie. Maar het probleem is dat er wat trillingen kunnen ontstaan. Omdat het fracking is, voor geothermie. Maar dan zonder chemicaliën en andere redenen waarom fracking ooit verboden werd in Europa. Ik was hard tegen fracken voor olie, maar voor geothermie is het geniaal, en de toekomst. Sommige mensen noemen het aardbevingen, maar dat zijn ze niet. Het zijn kleine trillingen, zoals je die ook voelt als er palen in de grond geslagen worden voor nieuwe bouwwerken, of ontploffingen in steengroeves.

Dit is een belangrijk debat dat we zo snel als mogelijk moeten hebben. De voordelen zijn gewoon niet te overzien. 24/7 propere energie, met een minimale voetafdruk aan de oppervlakte, en een gratis batterij. Dit systeem is nu al goedkoper dan kernenergie en offshore wind, dus we moeten zo snel mogelijk op die kar springen om onze industrie te redden van dure energieprijzen.

Kun je dit nog klaarspelen?
"Er wordt onderzoek gedaan naar verbeterde geothermische energie in België."

Met de allervriendelijkste groeten,
Danny

[Sigmetnow]

So yes, these tremors will have to be debated in Europe. Are we willing to accept them?

Exactly.  Nobody here is saying Geothermal energy should never be used.  But location and the possibility of quakes is one of many things that must be considered and might mean a particular location is not as suitable as first thought.

Perhaps the company would adjust the depth or usage criteria in ways designed to lessen the risk of earthquakes, accepting a bit less efficiency as a trade-off.  Maybe it is worth the cost to the project to pay to earthquake-proof some particularly vulnerable and important buildings in the area.  Beyond typical liability insurance, perhaps establish a fund to provide help to local communities in case of a seismic event without a lot of paperwork and legal wrangling.

It’s like if a company wanted to build out a large field of solar panels, and found acres of clear, flat area that seemed perfect — but they discover it’s in a flood zone.  Rather than risk the panels being washed away and end up enmeshed under the bridges of the town downstream and worsening damage and flooding there… they could investigate whether it would be worth the cost to build a more robust installation at a slightly higher elevation, one more likely to withstand a major flood.  Or, they look elsewhere.

[Freegrass]

So yes, these tremors will have to be debated in Europe. Are we willing to accept them?

Exactly.  Nobody here is saying Geothermal energy should never be used.  But location and the possibility of quakes is one of many things that must be considered and might mean a particular location is not as suitable as first thought.

Perhaps the company would adjust the depth or usage criteria in ways designed to lessen the risk of earthquakes, accepting a bit less efficiency as a trade-off.  Maybe it is worth the cost to the project to pay to earthquake-proof some particularly vulnerable and important buildings in the area.  Beyond typical liability insurance, perhaps establish a fund to provide help to local communities in case of a seismic event without a lot of paperwork and legal wrangling.

It’s like if a company wanted to build out a large field of solar panels, and found acres of clear, flat area that seemed perfect — but they discover it’s in a flood zone.  Rather than risk the panels being washed away and end up enmeshed under the bridges of the town downstream and worsening damage and flooding there… they could investigate whether it would be worth the cost to build a more robust installation at a slightly higher elevation, one more likely to withstand a major flood.  Or, they look elsewhere.

We're at the dawn of EGS. Many questions remain. So let's wait for someone to gather all those answers before we start whining about them on a message board.

[Sigmetnow]

So yes, these tremors will have to be debated in Europe. Are we willing to accept them?

Exactly.  Nobody here is saying Geothermal energy should never be used.  But location and the possibility of quakes is one of many things that must be considered and might mean a particular location is not as suitable as first thought.

Perhaps the company would adjust the depth or usage criteria in ways designed to lessen the risk of earthquakes, accepting a bit less efficiency as a trade-off.  Maybe it is worth the cost to the project to pay to earthquake-proof some particularly vulnerable and important buildings in the area.  Beyond typical liability insurance, perhaps establish a fund to provide help to local communities in case of a seismic event without a lot of paperwork and legal wrangling.

It’s like if a company wanted to build out a large field of solar panels, and found acres of clear, flat area that seemed perfect — but they discover it’s in a flood zone.  Rather than risk the panels being washed away and end up enmeshed under the bridges of the town downstream and worsening damage and flooding there… they could investigate whether it would be worth the cost to build a more robust installation at a slightly higher elevation, one more likely to withstand a major flood.  Or, they look elsewhere.

We're at the dawn of EGS. Many questions remain. So let's wait for someone to gather all those answers before we start whining about them on a message board.

Chill, dude.  Discussing the pros and cons of potential solutions is what this section of the Forum is all about.

[Freegrass]

Western governors issue new call to action on geothermal energy

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/western-governors-issue-new-call-to-action-on-geothermal-energy/ar-AA1sWHR7

The Western Governors’ Association is urging bipartisan congressional passage of a geothermal act that would streamline the often laborious and uncertain permitting process to open up the carbon free energy potential in the West.

Utah is the among the top three U.S. generators of utility scale geothermal energy, following California and Nevada in developing what is called “the heat beneath your feet,” to tap reservoirs of the Earth’s red-hot core. That geothermal heat generates steam to turn turbines to produce electricity.

The U.S. Department of Energy says geothermal power plants produce electricity consistently and can run essentially 24 hours per day, seven days per week, regardless of weather conditions. They can also ramp generation up or down to respond to changes in electricity demand.

“Western states already lead the nation in energy production from a wide range of sources, and, given that the vast majority of high-yield geothermal energy capacity in the United States is in the West, are poised to lead in geothermal energy development as well,” read the letter signed by the chair of the Western Governors’ Association, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-New Mexico, and its vice chair, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, R-Utah. “By addressing some of the obstacles to its development, this bill would help unlock the potential of geothermal energy.”

According to the association, geothermal was the first type of renewable energy approved for production on public lands by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management — the first project was approved in 1978. Today, 51 geothermal power plants operate on BLM-managed lands, producing a combined 2.6 gigawatts of electricity.

The holy grail of energy?

When U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm toured a University of Utah building tapping geothermal energy, she said its potential was enormous, labeling it the “holy grail” of energy.

According to that agency’s Next-Generation Geothermal Power Commercial Liftoff Report, geothermal power generation has the potential to generate more than 100 gigawatts of power by 2050.

Enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, expand geothermal resource potential to 5,500 gigawatts distributed across much of the country and remove the need to search for unique geologic environments by using subsurface engineering technologies already leveraged by the oil and gas industry, according to the report.

It underscored the success of Utah’s FORGE project in Beaver County, where drilling speeds at the DOE’s demonstration site improved by over 500% in three years, and well development costs decreased from $13 million to under $5 million per well between the first two large-scale commercial EGS pilots in the United States.

The first field-scale closed loop demonstration project was completed in 2022, and a closed loop commercial pilot in Germany is anticipated to be completed in 2028.

Developing the enhanced geothermal systems solves a geographic problem. The DOE said there is about 40 gigawatts of estimated conventional geothermal resource in the United States, but only 25% of that estimated resource has been located. Next-generation geothermal technologies expand geothermal resource potential across much of the country and remove the need to search for unique geologic environments, the agency said.

To help tap this energy, the Western Governors’ Association has advocated for streamlined permitting processes via the Geothermal Energy Optimization Act. The letter announced Thursday was in correspondence with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

“Geothermal projects, as with all energy development, are often hindered by inefficient permitting processes,” the letter read. “Western Governors believe these review processes can be improved and streamlined while still providing meaningful opportunities for public input and promoting a safe and healthy environment for our citizens.”

The need for permitting reform has been pushed heavily in Congress as energy demand ramps up across the country.

Geothermal Rising, an advocate for the industry and trade association, said operators spent years on technical due diligence within the acres nominated, allocating significant time and capital to researching and generating the potential prospects. Additionally, the operators have planned capital expenditures in 2023 and 2024 for surveys and exploration drilling activities within the nominated acres. But the permitting and lease sales have been fraught with delays in Utah.

This month, the BLM in Utah did announce a geothermal lease sale in December for 6,061 acres in Beaver and Millard counties.

“Geothermal is a renewable energy resource abundant in the West that can be used to heat buildings, operate greenhouses and support aquaculture operations with minimal emissions,” said deputy state director of fluid and minerals Christina Price. “Sites are selected for renewable energy development following an environmental assessment, which identifies appropriate stipulations to protect endangered species and cultural resources that may occur within the general area.”

[kassy]

So yes, these tremors will have to be debated in Europe. Are we willing to accept them?

Exactly.  Nobody here is saying Geothermal energy should never be used.  But location and the possibility of quakes is one of many things that must be considered and might mean a particular location is not as suitable as first thought.

This is a funny argument. I agree with the reasoning but it is often not actually being used in fracking or gas extraction.

Anyway for pilot projects it should not be a problem. Too bad we don´t have a good EU forward energy policy. This can also be a useful addition for places that are very far away from coastal wind and solar.   

[interstitial]

So yes, these tremors will have to be debated in Europe. Are we willing to accept them?

Exactly.  Nobody here is saying Geothermal energy should never be used.  But location and the possibility of quakes is one of many things that must be considered and might mean a particular location is not as suitable as first thought.

This is a funny argument. I agree with the reasoning but it is often not actually being used in fracking or gas extraction.

Anyway for pilot projects it should not be a problem. Too bad we don´t have a good EU forward energy policy. This can also be a useful addition for places that are very far away from coastal wind and solar.   

Goes to show how scrutiny of renewable projects is more extensive than oil and gas. Fossil fuel companies are better at manipulating environmental standards to stop renewable projects than environmental groups are to stop fossil fuel projects. When you read about the death of a single bird and how it causes a wind farm to be dismantled that is bad. Generally none of the environmental reasons for stopping renewable energy projects are worse than the environmental destruction caused by the fossil fuel projects they replace. The next time you hear of an environmental concern about a renewable energy project your first thought should be what fossil fuel interest is trying to shut this project down.

[Freegrass]

Well said Interstitial! I have a bigger problem with all the noise in the ocean when they hammer in all those pylons for wind turbines. The whales can suffer, but oh my if people feel a little tremor that won't do any harm 99% of the time. EGS is a no-brainer for me. Solar and wind will have their place, but I would rather see all our energy needs hidden underground.

Let's plant trees instead of solar panels.

[oren]

Not sure why you are attacking wind turbines and solar panels. They are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[Freegrass]

Not sure why you are attacking wind turbines and solar panels. They are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I'm just comparing technologies. If we can choose between solar, wind, and EGS, then I would choose EGS every time. We should put solar panels on every building, but have you never felt a little bad when you see nature full of solar panels and wind turbines? We accepted and defended solar and wind, because those were our only options to save the climate. Now that we have a new, and better technology, we don't have to accept that anymore. We can do better now. So let's do better.

[oren]

We accepted and defended solar and wind, because those were our only options to save the climate. Now that we have a new, and better technology, we don't have to accept that anymore.

Sorry, no. We do NOT have this new and better technology. Its level of maturity is way behind solar and wind, by a decade and probably by two. It's a startup that had a pilot project and is making promises. Even when the tech IS actually ready and proven and costs HAVE come down, it will take a long time to get decision makers to commit, get permits, make plans, get financing and actually build these.
When EGS plants ARE built in mass, they will need to replace all the fossil fuel plants still in existence, and the new ones getting built every year. Only then, by 2050 at the least, will it be time to consider replacing solar and wind with EGS.
Just look at solar and wind, where costs have come down and the decision is a no-brainer, and still we do not have enough of them. So assuming all our problems are solved at the present just because the videos are nice and the tech seems plausible and promising, is a mistake.

[gerontocrat]

We accepted and defended solar and wind, because those were our only options to save the climate. Now that we have a new, and better technology, we don't have to accept that anymore.

Sorry, no. We do NOT have this new and better technology. Its level of maturity is way behind solar and wind, by a decade and probably by two. It's a startup that had a pilot project and is making promises. Even when the tech IS actually ready and proven and costs HAVE come down, it will take a long time to get decision makers to commit, get permits, make plans, get financing and actually build these.
When EGS plants ARE built in mass, they will need to replace all the fossil fuel plants still in existence, and the new ones getting built every year. Only then, by 2050 at the least, will it be time to consider replacing solar and wind with EGS.
Just look at solar and wind, where costs have come down and the decision is a no-brainer, and still we do not have enough of them. So assuming all our problems are solved at the present just because the videos are nice and the tech seems plausible and promising, is a mistake.

Freegrass, your argument is a gift to the climate denial industry's campaign to slow down or stop growth in renewable energy.

And as oren writes, the planet has not got the time to dither around for another decade, given that climate change is already pushing against +1.5C, which once passed will be extremely and increasingly difficult to reverse.

Silver bullets only exist in the Horror Comics.

[Freegrass]

We accepted and defended solar and wind, because those were our only options to save the climate. Now that we have a new, and better technology, we don't have to accept that anymore.

Sorry, no. We do NOT have this new and better technology. Its level of maturity is way behind solar and wind, by a decade and probably by two. It's a startup that had a pilot project and is making promises. Even when the tech IS actually ready and proven and costs HAVE come down, it will take a long time to get decision makers to commit, get permits, make plans, get financing and actually build these.
When EGS plants ARE built in mass, they will need to replace all the fossil fuel plants still in existence, and the new ones getting built every year. Only then, by 2050 at the least, will it be time to consider replacing solar and wind with EGS.
Just look at solar and wind, where costs have come down and the decision is a no-brainer, and still we do not have enough of them. So assuming all our problems are solved at the present just because the videos are nice and the tech seems plausible and promising, is a mistake.

I do not see a new technology. I see an old and dirty technology being repurposed to do good. We're recycling proven oil tech. Drilling rigs, well piping, fracking tools, generators, drill heads, it's all old tech, being used in a different way.

Horizontal drilling and fracking changed the oil and gas industry in the blink of an eye. I don't see why this couldn't happen again. The only thing they're doing different now is that they're drilling deeper to bring up steam instead of oil and gas.

All that knowledge from the FF industry is very valuable. These people know what they're doing. Just look at how fast Fervo made improvements. On their first try, with project Red, for Google, they were able to get 3.5MW out of one well. On their second project, in Utah, they're already reaching 10MW, aiming for 16MW. That's more energy out of one well than if it were oil.

And that project just received approval to go from 400MW to 2000MW. Laws are already being changed to speed up permitting.

This is America and the oil industry we're talking about. Those evil people that control everything. If they don't pivot to geothermal, their employees will. These people get things done.

And it's not because the oil industry could pivot to EGS, that they will stop drilling for oil. Just like there's no need to stop building solar and wind now. I agree that we'll need it all, but land is precious. If we can drill a hole in the ground for our energy needs, then maybe it would be a better idea to plant trees wherever we can to suck up carbon.

Use deserts, lakes, and rooftops for new solar, but let's not waste good land to build solar farms. We need that land for CDR.

I know I'm running wild. A lot still has to be proven. That'll take some time. But I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing a lot more about EGS in the next 2 years. No new tech required, just repurposing of old and dirty blue collar tech. All steel, easily recycled.

Freegrass, your argument is a gift to the climate denial industry's campaign to slow down or stop growth in renewable energy.

And as oren writes, the planet has not got the time to dither around for another decade, given that climate change is already pushing against +1.5C, which once passed will be extremely and increasingly difficult to reverse.

Silver bullets only exist in the Horror Comics.

I'm not advocating to slow down anything. I'm already thinking ahead, while using arguments that are already being made by climate deniers. If EGS is proven, and I think it already is, then we can speed this up rapidly. Drilling is current technology. No need to invent new stuff, or build high-tech factories. Just metalworkers building more drilling rigs.

And again, I'm not saying we should stop building solar and wind right now. All I'm saying is that we may have to rethink the future.

[etienne]

I remember reading that geothermal energy has some impact on the stability of the underground, if I remember well,  there could be some issues with dilatation since some places get lightly colder. Don't remember exactly but the article was about Sweden. Maybe the nature of the soil has to be considered.
The only fully positive solution remains degrowth.

[kassy]

There are many variations. The relevant data here are when is that first huge scale pilot going to start?

[Sigmetnow]

Here is some information on the topic of earthquakes related to Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)

The earthquakes caused by geothermal projects are usually small, often not felt at the surface or registering only as micro-earthquakes (below magnitude 3).
 
However, Enhanced Geothermal Systems can trigger earthquakes as part of hydraulic fracturing.  A project in Basel, Switzerland was abandoned because more than 10,000 seismic events measuring up to 3.4 on the Richter Scale occurred over the first 6 days of injection.

——
The state of Utah in the U.S. discovered swarms of earthquakes being induced by EGS activity:
 
University of Utah Seismograph Stations (UUSS)

UUSS @UUSSquake
 
Feb 2024
The largest earthquake is part of a swarm of 197 earthquakes related to ongoing EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) development in the area that began on February 15 with additional M < 1.5 events still to be located.
2/22/24, https://x.com/uussquake/status/1760788396262523315
   ——
March 2024
The swarm of earthquakes are related to ongoing EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) development in the area that began on February 15. The magnitudes range from M -1.0 to 2.3, with 95% M < 1.5.
3/7/24, https://x.com/uussquake/status/1765783696408482101
   ——
April 2024
A swarm of 179 earthquakes were located about 12 miles northeast of Milford, UT. These earthquakes are related to ongoing EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) development in the area that began on April 3. The magnitudes range from M -1.5 to 1.9, with 97% M < 1.
4/18/24, https://x.com/uussquake/status/1781045627046236663
   ——
June 2024
A swarm of 133 earthquakes, located about 12 miles northeast of Milford, UT. These earthquakes are related to ongoing EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) development in the area June 4 - 12. The magnitudes ranged from M -0.7 to 2.2.
6/13/24, https://x.com/uussquake/status/1801338328241029541
——
August 2024
A swarm of 128 earthquakes, located about 12 miles northeast of Milford, UT. These earthquakes are related to ongoing EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) development in the area July 27 - August 7. The magnitudes range from M -0.6 to 1.5.
8/9/24, https://x.com/uussquake/status/1822015911039299940

Earthquake maps at the links.

——-
Texas

Nah, we tried geothermal in west Texas. It caused too many earthquakes, especially for a region with virtually zero earthquake building codes.

6/20/24, https://x.com/_derekmitchell_/status/1803897744567816521
 
—-
California

< 364 quakes in the last 48 hours at Clear Lake Volcano in California with a 4.5 thrown in there. I don't see news sites saying a peep about "large swarm ongoing at volcano" when it is a populated area+big summer attraction.
 
GeologyHub: These earthquake swarms are incredibly common at Clear Lake. Most are related to its geothermal field which has a capacity of about 1600 MW (via geothermal power plants)
 
< Oh. So it's not actual activity on it's own then, rather, it's the plant injecting water back into the ground, hence all the rock breaking causing quakes?
 
GeologyHub: Correct. Also, there is a legitimately large magma chamber (600,000 years old, cooling for some time and no real risk) that powers the geothermal field

6/9/24, https://x.com/hubgeology/status/1799938950502699339

—-
U.K.

Dr Al Williams BSc PhD PD 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿
Geothermal energy projects in Cornwall, which have also been used to extract lithium have caused earthquakes.
 
Multiple quakes at Preston New Road fracking site caused structural damage to property. The UK now has a moratorium against the technology.

9/9/24, https://x.com/alanwilliamz/status/1833032295407604133
 
Earthquake sparked by Eden Project's geothermal testing 'shakes homes' in Cornwall
Thursday 10 March 2022
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-03-10/it-shook-my-house-earthquake-felt-from-within-homes-in-cornwall

——
South Korea
 
Lessons from Pohang: A Stanford geophysicist discusses geothermal energy’s earthquake problem – and possible solutions

A geothermal energy project triggered a damaging earthquake in 2017 in South Korea. A new analysis suggests flaws in some of the most common ways of trying to minimize the risk of such quakes when harnessing Earth’s heat for energy.
 
On a November afternoon in 2017, a magnitude 5.5 earthquake shook Pohang, South Korea, injuring dozens and forcing more than 1,700 of the city’s residents into emergency housing. Research now shows that development of a geothermal energy project shoulders the blame.
 
“There is no doubt,” said Stanford geophysicist William Ellsworth. “Usually we don’t say that in science, but in this case, the evidence is overwhelming.” Ellsworth is among a group of scientists, including Kang-Kun Lee of Seoul National University, who published a perspective piece May 24 in Science outlining lessons from Pohang’s failure.
 
The Pohang earthquake stands out as by far the largest ever linked directly to development of what’s known as an enhanced geothermal system, which typically involves forcing open new underground pathways for Earth’s heat to reach the surface and generate power. And it comes at a time when the technology could provide a stable, ever-present complement to more finicky wind and solar power as a growing number of nations and U.S. states push to develop low-carbon energy sources. By some estimates, it could amount to as much as 10 percent of current U.S. electric capacity. Understanding what went wrong in Pohang could allow other regions to more safely develop this promising energy source.
 
Conventional geothermal resources have been generating power for decades in places where heat and water from deep underground can burble up through naturally permeable rock. In Pohang, as in other enhanced geothermal projects, injections cracked open impermeable rocks to create conduits for heat from the Earth that would otherwise remain inaccessible for making electricity.
 
“We have understood for half a century that this process of pumping up the Earth with high pressure can cause earthquakes,” said Ellsworth, who co-directs the Stanford Center for Induced and Triggered Seismicity and is a professor in the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). …

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/05/lessons-south-korea-solving-geothermals-earthquake-problem

 
=====
 
Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview
https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/rest/items/item_455903_5/component/file_682908/content

Induced seismicity associated with Enhanced Geothermal System
https://escholarship.org/content/qt2568w6sn/qt2568w6sn_noSplash_28078b1166ced5ae7575596eb02c2203.pdf

Induced seismicity in The Geysers Geothermal Area, California - Eberhart‐Phillips - 1984 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth - Wiley Online Library
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JB089iB02p01191
These [earthquakes] show a significant spatial clustering near production wells in the steam field that was not apparent in earlier studies. We infer from the spatial and temporal pattern of seismicity that the seismicity at The Geysers is induced by geothermal production activities

Google Search link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=geothermal+induced+seismicity+activity

——
EurekaMag
Probability of earthquake occurrence and magnitude estimation in the post shut-in phase of geothermal projects
https://eurekamag.com/research/036/290/036290741.php
 
7/2/24, https://x.com/eurekamag/status/1808256863643000844
⬇️